I get his reports sent to me but know of no link. He has previously told me to post his comments here. Despite his permission, I seldom take him up on his kind offer. But this is different and I believe important enough to discuss. " To all: I don't care about the history of 'settled law', or what is the definition of 'stare decisis', or precedent, or 'predicate' as too often incorrectly used by attorneys or Judges. EVERY WORD IS BULLCRAP. Even the interpretation of the Latin phrase is so outrageous to be used in American law, one has to wonder why 'precedent' has become so hallowed!. My wife who works for the CEO of a prestigious law firm tells me how 'reverently' their attorneys speak about 'precedent'! (I just laugh because I know it's been foisted upon them by centuries of use). Poor schmucks. . I have some news you can use: The idea of using whatever you want to call it, but presently most commonly used is the term "precedent' as something to guide a court of law is about as valid as trying to change the Pythagorean Theorem for a 3-sided right triangle - it should never be done!. Why in the heck should a precedent carry much weight in a court too often when the precedent may be outdated; may have been set with a completely different set of partisan Judges;, or actually does not match the present circumstances in far too many ways. Personally, I strongly believe it should be banned. Unfortunately, attorneys and Judges are steeped in centuries of what they have been (wrongly) taught they cannot see the forest for the trees. The judiciary is entractable in so many of their methods, including this one when defendants have been wrongly convicted, were 'cheated' out of a civil settlement they should have received, or the precedent used was not relative to the facts of the present case. PRECEDENT BY ANY OTHER NAME IS BALONEY! I am so glad my career was in highway design engineering where we do not depend upon the possible poor prior judgment of some other entities. We are blessed by having only to follow the laws of physical science and of course AASHTO (in America) to quite well exercise our profession and avoid controversy. David Heckman " Let's have a go at his argument.
Slavery was the "precedent" for about 80 years. You don't hear all these people spouting precedent should rule worrying about slavery. The law can be wrong, courts can be wrong. If a law is wrong then its wrong regardless of how long its been wrong.
